Tanada vs Yulo Case Digest

Tanada v. Yulo
No. 43575 (May 31, 1935)

FACTS:
Petitioner is a Justice of Peace appointed by the Gov. Gen. with the consent  by the Philippine
Commission,  assigned to Alabat,  Tayabas.  Later  in his  service,  he was transferred to Perez,
Tayabas. He reached his 65 birthday on October 35, 1934, subsequent to the approval  of Act No.
3899 which makes mandatory the retirement of all justices who have reached 65 years of age at the
time said Act takes effect on January 1, 1933. The judge of First instance, acting upon the directive
of the Secretary of  Respondent  Justice,  directed Petitioner  to cease holding office pursuant  to
Act No. 3899. 

ISSUE:
1. W/N Petitioner should cease to hold office.
2. W/N his transfer is considered a “new transfer” and  requires confirmation by the Philippine
Commission.

 HELD:
No, Petitioner  should not cease to hold office as Act No. 3899 clearly states that those who will
cease to hold office are those 65 yrs of age at the time the Act takes effect, not thereafter. Therefore,
Petitioner shall be a Justice of Peace for life as long as he stays in good behavior or does not
become incapacitated. No, his transfer is not a new appointment. Hence, no confirmation is
required as it is just an enlargement of the jurisdiction grounded on original appointment